Thanks for being here, Mr. Johnston.
I would say that we all owe you a debt of gratitude for your service to Canada over decades. I want to thank you for the many roles you've taken on and faithfully served and fulfilled, and for the latest role you've taken on.
I do recognize that your report has come with some questions, and there have been some concerns that others have expressed. Maybe I'll quote PM Harper, which I don't often do. When you were originally appointed as the Governor General, he said that you represented “the best of Canada”.
I appreciate the fact that you're here today in front of all the parliamentary members answering our questions for three hours. It really is a testament to your service to Canada.
I want to start by mentioning a few things that we've heard here at this committee, online, in press conferences and in House proceedings.
Mr. Calkins has said that Han Dong is “an agent for Beijing”.
Pierre Poilievre has said repeatedly that Justin Trudeau “is acting against Canada's interest and in favour of a foreign dictatorship”. That was on March 7.
Pierre Poilievre also said that the PM “expressed his admiration for the basic Chinese Communist dictatorship.... Seeing this ideological bond, Beijing decided it had a friend and wanted to help the Prime Minister get elected. It interfered in two successive elections.” Poilievre also said, “We also know that the Prime Minister has been aware of many of these facts for a very long time and yet chose to do nothing.”
Mr. Cooper, who is on this committee, said, “The invitation of a 'briefing' is a blatant trap to muzzle Poilievre under national security laws.” The truth is now a trap, apparently.
In the long list of baseless and absurd claims that the Conservative Party is making, the latest is on their website. It says, “Trudeau’s Fake Rapporteur Continues Interference Coverup”.
I would submit to this committee, and to you, that these are not just harmless exaggerations or isolated instances of partisan hyperbole. They're intentional and inflammatory. They're baseless allegations, and they're harmful and false. They erode the trust in our democracy. They're stoking anti-government sentiments for political gain.
In your first report, Mr. Johnston, you said that you incorporated into it a wide range of sources, including the proceedings of this committee. You noted that at times members of this committee asked “insightful questions”. You also referred to the “element of political theatre”.
Do you think this debate, and the importance of providing answers to the Canadian public, is well served when the political theatre element drowns out the probative fact-finding work that we're all called upon to do?